Tribunal tenure and Board functioning: concluded appointment term could not be revived, and statutory acting arrangements prevented paralysis.

Section 89A of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, places qualifications, tenure and service conditions of tribunal appointees within the statutory and rule-making framework, and a concluded term cannot be revived by later tribunal reforms once it has expired. On the facts, the incumbent Chairperson's appointment had run until 21.09.2019, so continuation beyond that date was not available. The Board's functioning also was not dependent on extending that tenure, because the Act provides acting and substitution mechanisms, including discharge of functions by the Chairperson and arrangements for the Vice-Chairperson or senior-most member to act in vacancy or inability to function.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the incumbent Chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board was entitled to continue in office beyond the tenure fixed in the appointment order by reason of Section 89A of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and the later tribunal jurisprudence; (ii) whether the Board could not function in the absence of a judicial member and therefore required extension of the incumbent's tenure.

Issue (i): whether the incumbent Chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board was entitled to continue in office beyond the tenure fixed in the appointment order by reason of Section 89A of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and the later tribunal jurisprudence.

Analysis: Section 89A shifted the qualifications, tenure and other conditions of service of appointees made after the commencement of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 to the regime under Section 184 of that Act. Section 184 authorised rule-making, but the actual tenure remained subject to the rules and the outer limits fixed by the statute. On the facts, the incumbent's appointment as additional charge holder for the Board was ultimately made to run up to 21.09.2019. The later decisions concerning tribunal reforms did not extend that concluded tenure on these facts, and the interim protection in the earlier litigation did not revive a post that had already expired before the relevant rules were struck down.

Conclusion: The claim for continuation in office beyond 21.09.2019 was rejected and is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the Board could not function in the absence of a judicial member and therefore required extension of the incumbent's tenure.

Analysis: Sections 84(2) and 84(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 operate together, and the latter confers enabling powers on the Chairperson to discharge functions of a judicial or technical member of another Bench. Section 87 also provides for the Vice-Chairperson or senior-most member to act as Chairperson in a vacancy or inability to function. Section 85 further permits appointment of a Chairperson from among qualified persons, including one who has held the office of Vice-Chairperson. The Board's functioning therefore did not depend on extending the incumbent's tenure on the asserted ground that no judicial member was available.

Conclusion: The contention that the Board could not function without extending the incumbent's tenure was rejected and is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: No basis was made out for judicial extension of the incumbent Chairperson's tenure, and the application seeking such relief failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded term of office fixed under the applicable statutory and appointment framework cannot be revived by later tribunal directions where the tenure had already expired, and the Board's statutory scheme for Bench composition and acting arrangements prevents functional paralysis in the absence of the incumbent.

---